Re: RE: coordinate system

Hi,

1. If "up" is determined by the liquid, each detector will have a slightly different vertical axis. The earth's curvature is about 6 micro-radians per mile. Small, but might be significant for the difference between near and far detector.

2. The reactor core may not be known precisely. Has anyone written a realistic model for the source? How do we define the "center of the core."

3. If we can define the core centers and draw a line between them, we would like to know the axis of symmetry, which would presumably be perpendicular to this line. The axis of symmetry could be defined as the intersection of the vertical and horizontal planes of symmetry, if they exist. Because we are dealing with extended sources, the vertical and horizontal planes of symmetry might not the orthoginal to each other.

These will be small effects, but we should probably keep them in mind as we go along. I'm especially interested in knowing a bit more about the size and distribution of the reactor core.

Cheers,

Ray Stefanski
Fermilab, MS122
P.O. Box 500
Batavia, Il 60510
Phone: 630.8403872

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bolton, Tim" <bolton@phys.ksu.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:16 am
Subject: RE: coordinate system

> Precisely. After talking with Glenn and Josh and looking at what
> KAMLAND and SNO did, I think a more
> sensible choice might be:
>
> z-axis -- plumb-line up, or zenith angle 0. Our liquid always
> measures this.
>
> xy-plane is perpindicular to z.
>
> x-axis (phi=0) -- draw a line from the midpoint of the two
> reactor cores to the center of the upstream near detector (if
> there are two, then to the one most likely to be fixed. Project
> the line to the xy-plane.
>
>
> y = z X x.
>
> This way the z-axis is the one about which the detector has
> rotational symmetry. The beam is mostly along the x axis with a
> small -z component and a y component that typically averages to
> zero. The x and y axes will also be approximate symmetry axes for
> the cavern and veto structures.
>
> TB
>
>
> Tim Bolton
> Professor
> High Energy Physics Group
> Kansas State University
> tbolton@ksu.edu
> 785-532-1664
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Link [link@fnal.gov]
> Sent: Tue 12/21/2004 10:52 PM
> To: Bolton, Tim
> Cc: reactor-vwg@mit.edu
> Subject: Re: coordinate system
>
> Which beam? Reactor one or reactor two?
>
> Bolton, Tim wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure we have even made a basic convention for the
> coordinate system.
> >
> >ReactorFsim tacitly assumes
> >
> >z = "beam direction", with z increasing as one moves away from
> reactor.
> >
> >y = "up"
> >
> >x = y X z
> >
> >And x and y don't really matter.
> >
> >But there are subtleties.
> >
> >-- Where is x=y=z=0? Center of one detector (which one).
> Midpoint between two reactor cores? Ed's office?
> >
> >-- Can we assume that all detectors are centered on the z-axis.
> >
> >-- y is not really "up" in this convention, because of "beam
> tilt". Should it be "up" as in vertical or "up as perpindicular
> to beam?
> >
> >Maybe there is a better choice. We should make it before we
> start introducing elements that define direction.
> >
> >TB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Tim Bolton
> >Professor
> >High Energy Physics Group
> >Kansas State University
> >tbolton@ksu.edu
> >785-532-1664
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ELog@CYCLOTRON.mit.edu [ELog@CYCLOTRON.mit.edu]
> >Sent: Tue 12/21/2004 9:26 AM
> >To: reactor-vwg@MIT.EDU
> >Subject: New ELOG entry
> >
> >A new entry has been submitted on cyclo.mit.edu
> >
> >Logbook : Veto Working Group
> >Author : Peter Fisher
> >Type : Agenda
> >Category : General
> >Subject : Short phone meeting Tuesday, 3:30 pm, 617-
> 324-7520
> >
> >Logbook URL : http://cyclo.mit.edu:8080/Veto+Working+Group/6
> >
> >=================================
> >
> >Please note the meeting will start a half hour later than usual.
> >
> >Agenda
> >------
> >
> >1. Nomenclature and general veto configurations - 10'
> > At the last meeting with discussed some general configurations
> for the
> >veto simulation. I've made some simple sketches which are on the
> E-log.
> >I'm happy to change any label to be consistant with history, but
> we should
> >agree on what we call things.
> >
> >2. Simulation progress and plans - 15'
> > Work has begun on flux functions for ReactorFsim and ther are
> >opprotunities for people to contribute. We should briefly review
> what is
> >being done.
> >
> >The next meeting will be Jan. 4, 2004.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 22 12:56:28 2004